Ci zenship Amendment Act: Dividing Democracy by Religion
The Ci zenship Amendment Act (CAA) is crea ng a divide in the world’s largest democracy by using
religion as a basis, effec vely labelling India as a Hindu na on. My views in this ar cle are not against
any religion; however, crea ng labels founded on religion-based differences for poli cal gains is not
sustainable.
The CAA grants a fast-track opportunity for persecuted religious minori es—Hindus, Sikhs, Jains,
Parsis, Buddhists, and Chris ans—who entered India before December 31, 2014, from Pakistan,
Bangladesh, and Afghanistan. These individuals can apply for ci zenship by naturaliza on within six
years, a reduc on from the earlier twelve-year period. The Ci zenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024
under the Ci zenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 were no fied on March 11, 2024, just a couple of
months before the elec on.
Labelling countries based on religion, such as Islamic, Hindu, and Chris an na ons, has become
common. However, as a genera on, we need to collec vely reconsider whether religion should define
our existence, trade, commerce, and interac ons.
By including only certain religions and countries, the CAA creates a divide. While poli cal claims state
that the CAA is a law of inclusion, the specific men on of six religions inherently excludes others.
Passing this Act in Parliament contradicts the Ar cles 14 and 15 of the Indian Cons tu on which clearly
states that there will be equality and no discrimina on on grounds of religion, race, caste, gender,
or place of birth.
The ming of the Act’s passage suggests a poli cal agenda aimed at securing votes. While the Na onal
Register of Ci zens (NRC) is important and long overdue, gran ng ci zenship to people based on
religion and geography while excluding others is discriminatory.
Moreover, the Act grants fast-track rights to those who entered India before December 31, 2014. By
the original twelve-year logic, these individuals would be eligible for ci zenship within maximum two
years anyway. Thus, the urgency of the Act seems unnecessary. A be er approach would be to create
a process for gran ng ci zenship to minori es from neighbouring countries without singling out
specific religions. It seems very difficult to enforce the Act in its current forma on. We can even draw
parallels to the asylum rules implemented in a few developed na ons such as the US and Canada and
take ideas from there. Conceptually, it might be more welcoming than the current CAA.
In conclusion, while the inten on behind the CAA might have been to provide ci zenship to persecuted
minori es, its implementa on has raised significant concerns about religious discrimina on and
poli cal mo ves. A more inclusive and equitable approach is essen al to ensure that India remains a
secular and democra c na on. By addressing these issues, we can move towards a society that values
and upholds the principles of equality and non-discrimina on embedded in our Cons tu on.
References:
The Gaze e of India. (2019). The Ci zenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. Retrieved from
h ps://www.egaze e.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/214646.pdf
Press Informa on Bureau. (2023). Retrieved from h ps://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2020671
India Today. (2019, December 29). Is CAA cons tu onal? Big debate on Rajdeep Sardesai's show. Retrieved from
h ps://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/is-caa-cons tu onal-big-debate-on-rajdeep-sardesai-s-show-1632126-2019-12-29
Wikipedia contributors. (2019, December 12). *Ci zenship (Amendment) Act, 2019*. In *Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia*. Retrieved
August 1, 2024, from h ps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ci zenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019
0
